hey evos

However, when lawdog is registered I think it would be polite to supply some more of the content and point of the referenced article. It is asking a bit much of any of us to trot off the library for a specific point.

I’ll do better: here are three related articles you can read yourself on-line. Hopefully this will satisfy your apparent intimation that I refuse to get into a detailed discussion of the subject with some internet troll who can’t be bothered to register. BTW: Where did this little cheap shot come from, Nosy? Have I EVER referenced something I can’t back up?Chen L, DeVries AL, Cheng C-CH, 1997, Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish PNAS 94: 3811—3816Chen L, DeVries AL, Cheng C-CH, 1997 Convergent evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic notothenioid fish and Arctic cod, PNAS 94: 3817—3822Hsiao K, Cheng C-CH, Fernandes IE, Detrich HW, and DeVries AL, 1990, An antifreeze glycopeptide gene from the antarctic cod Notothenia coriiceps neglecta encodes a polyprotein of high peptide copy number PNAS 87: 9265—9269Here’s a few additional abstracts that bolster the trypsinogen => AFGP transition which examine related notothenioid fishes in near-Antarctic and Antarctic waters:Cheng CH, Chen L, Near TJ, Jin Y, 2003, Functional antifreeze glycoprotein genes in temperate-water New Zealand nototheniid fish infer an Antarctic evolutionary origin, MolBioEvo 20: 1897-1908

quote:

---

The fish fauna of the Antarctic Ocean is dominated by five endemic families of the Perciform suborder Notothenioidei, thought to have arisen in situ within the Antarctic through adaptive radiation of an ancestral stock that evolved antifreeze glycoproteins (AFGPs) enabling survival as the ocean chilled to subzero temperatures. The endemism results from geographic confinement imposed by a massive oceanographic barrier, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which also thermally isolated Antarctica over geologic time, leading to its current frigid condition. Despite this voluminous barrier to fish dispersal, a number of species from the Antarctic family Nototheniidae now inhabit the nonfreezing cool temperate coasts of the southern continents. The origin of these temperate-water nototheniids is not completely understood. Since the AFGP gene apparently evolved only once, before the Antarctic notothenioid radiation, the presence of AFGP genes in extant temperate-water nototheniids can be used to infer an Antarctic evolutionary origin. Genomic Southern analysis, PCR amplification of AFGP genes, and sequencing showed that Notothenia angustata and Notothenia microlepidota endemic to southern New Zealand have two to three AFGP genes, structurally the same as those of the Antarctic nototheniids. At least one of these genes is still functional, as AFGP cDNAs were obtained and low levels of mature AFGPs were detected in the blood. A phylogenetic tree based on complete ND2 coding sequences showed monophyly of these two New Zealand nototheniids and their inclusion in the monophyletic Nototheniidae consisted of mostly AFGP-bearing taxa. These analyses support an Antarctic ancestry for the New Zealand nototheniids. A divergence time of approximately 11 Myr was estimated for the two New Zealand nototheniids, approximating the upper Miocene northern advance of the Antarctic Convergence over New Zealand, which might have served as the vicariant event that lead to the northward dispersal of their most recent common ancestor. Similar secondary northward dispersal likely applies to the South American nototheniid Paranotothenia magellanica, which has four AFGP genes in its DNA, but not to the sympatric nototheniid Patagonotothen tessellata, which does not appear to have any AFGP sequences in its genome at all.

---

Bargelloni L, Ritchie PA, Patarnello T, Battaglia B, Lambert DM, Meyer A, 1994, Molecular evolution at subzero temperatures: mitochondrial and nuclear phylogenies of fishes from Antarctica (suborder Notothenioidei), and the evolution of antifreeze glycopeptides MolBioEvo 11:854-863

quote:

---

Most fishes of the perciform suborder Notothenioidei are endemic to the subzero marine waters of Antarctica. A number of remarkable physiological attributes allow them to inhabit this extreme environment; for example, the blood of almost all notothenioid species contains antifreeze glycopeptides. To establish a molecular phylogenetic hypothesis for these fishes, DNA sequences from two mitochondrial genes, portions of the 12S and 16S ribosomal genes (928 base pairs [bp]), were determined for 18 species. These belong to 15 genera in five families of the suborder. The DNA data suggest that two of these families are unnatural groups and consequently that the classification and phylogeny of this suborder is in need of revision. In terms of DNA variation, the Bovichtidae are a distantly related sister group to the other families of the suborder that includes the icefishes, the only vertebrates without hemoglobin. The fishes of the suborder (except the Bovichtidae) seem to have speciated rapidly, forming an adaptive radiation in the Antarctic waters. A phylogenetic analysis of published hemoglobin amino acid sequences for other notothenioid fishes supports these results from mtDNA. On the basis of molecular phylogeny, the evolution of antifreeze glycopeptides was studied. The age of the radiation of notothenioid fishes had been estimated to be at least 38 Mya. However, the level of mtDNA variation detected in notothenioid fishes appears to be too low to agree with this date of origin and might instead suggest a younger age (10-15 Mya). Alternatively, the low level of detected mtDNA variation would agree with the traditional old-age estimate if an extremely slow rate of mtDNA evolution is postulated for this group. This slow-rate hypothesis, if true, could be explained by decreased metabolic rates slowing down the tempo of molecular evolution.

---

What a waste of time on a Welcome Visitor’s thread, especially posting all this to someone who’s apparently unwilling to even register on the site. Satisfied, Nosy, or do you want me to buy you a subscription to Nature so you can get the original article yourself instead of "trotting off to the library for a specific point"?

It wasn't meant to be a cheap shot at all. Sorry if it came across that way. I'm pretty surprised that you've reacted so strongly.I did say you should wait for registration and the appropriate topic to be started up. My real point is that pointing to books isn't going to move the debate along. They aren't easily accessible for most of us.Only if that is the only source do I think we should move off the web.

Bollocks. Our friend lawdog issued a fairly typical one-line "evo challenge" - exactly like 95% of the post-and-run creationists that appear then vanish on this board. I provided a one-line response: exactly what the question merited, in context. And since s/he was nice enough to clarify his/her question when asked, I was nice enough to reference the source material from which my answer was derived. And THAT is all I intend to do from now on with these drive-by evilution slayers - unless they register. Your little potshot about being "polite" and backing up my reference, especially in the face of how many substantive posts I've made on this forum that do precisely that, was both unwelcome and insulting. I will assume that you weren't being intentionally insulting.

Thank you for that. I can only assure you that I wasn't. You are one of the names that I watch for as a post to be sure to read.Actually, what was in the back of my mind is setting an example for the likes of WT who has demonstrated an extraordinary lack of ability to suport his assertions. I think the the "light side" has to set a better than good example. I consider you strong in the force for good.

Ned, I gained the same impression as Quetzal to your message #16 but did not feel moved enough to respond. Quetzal's initial response with a reference was more than adequate response to someone who has not shown their bon fides by registering.After seeing other posts which Lawdog has subsequently made, I think Quetzal's initial conditional response was well justified.

Good day all,
I was just wandering around the web, and I came accross this lovly lil' site, and I noticed that Evolutionists do seem to be a little more long lived then Creationists...shame on them. I'm a Creationist, and no, I'm not going to pretend to be some "neutral" who is looking for " the answers to life" and spring a trapping question on you and then disappear. Heck, I'm not even going to pretend to use good grammer and spelling. Sorry folks, I'm 19. If you don't like it, fix the public school system. However, I do look forward to matching wits with you all in the near future. Disclaimer: I'm in the US Navy, so if good ol' Uncle Sam calls, I might be gone for extended periods. I'm not retreating, I'm doing my job, and I'm sure most of you can understand.Joe

Hey, Navy. Welcome aboard, and good hunting. Creationism is false on every account so I look forward to our debates.

Hey Navy,Welcome aboard. We haven't had an active duty cephalopod on the board before (or at least none who would admit it). In any case, we won't hold it against you. It'll be interesting to hear what your reasons for creationism are (hope oft springs eternal that someone will come up with a new argument, or a new twist on an old one.) Looking forward to discussing with you."Gunny" Quetzal

I appreciate the warm welcomes. Yes yes, like a chicken meeting foxes. Hehe...Creationism is totally false, eh? Yes we will have fun. Good day y'all.Joe

Navy10E,Welcome to the site. I am guessing that 10E doesn't mean you are an E10. If you are, congrats. Good luck on upcoming cruises. I had a buddy that was AO and toured the Med on aircraft carriers. He loved it, and hated it all at the same time.Just a suggestion, user "kendemyer" is complaining about the lack of creationist support here at EvC. You might want to chip in if you feel up to the task just to make him feel less picked on. Hope to hear more from you soon, good luck.Loudmouth

Haha...I wish. We don't technically have E-10's, but I won't mind if they make me the first (E-9 is the highest). No, I'm an E-2, working my way up. I'm in A school right now (CTM is my rating), but I may leave on a tour sometime in late spring or early summer. But we'll see. Thanks for the advice, and I'll try to look the dude up.

It's pretty annoying to see that I just got here and I already feel that "whatever" is the only other creationist on the forum. This site is beginning to suck. 7 people (evolutionists) all throwing responses back at me whenever I say anything. Then there are the people who don't understand that there is a difference between natural selection and evolution as a theory for origins. Hmmm. I feel so utterly alone. Hey whatever we should recruit people email me if you wanna.

What the hell are you talking about? There's plenty of creationists here. Navy10E, Syamsu, Arkathon, Servantofthefaith, Jazzlover, Messenjah, Prophex, Willowtree, Kendemyer, and many others have all posted within the last few days. Some of these guys are new and some have been here for months. And according to Adminnemooseus, they don't even have to follow the forum guidelines, apparently.

Umm, I think you replied to the wrong person. I have only addressed you once - offering to discuss why you considered that folks who think evolutionary theory is valid are idiots. Since you didn't bother to either support your assertion, argue that you were taken out of context, or open a thread discussing the "glaring problems" with the theory, I've pretty much ignored your subsequent posts. Feel free to either take me up on my offer or continue to ignore me. Makes absolutely no difference to me one way or the other. However, no matter your decision here, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of anything I haven't done. Thanks.added by edit: Oh yeah, I for one would LOVE to have you recruit additional creationists to debate here. The more the merrier. After all, that's what most of us are here for...[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-26-2004]